RAKESH KUMAR Vs. KASTURI LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure prays for setting aside order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioners, in which it was claimed that the suit of the plaintiff-respondents was liable to be dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a civil suit alleging that the tenancy of the tenant-petitioner has been terminated and they have claimed arrears of rent and damages. The suit was filed on account of notification dated 7.11.2002, which provides that the buildings where the municipal rent exceeds Rs. 1500/- p.m. would not attract the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (for brevity 'the Rent Act'). Before filing the suit, the plaintiff-respondents appear to have served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. However, the tenant-petitioner has failed to accede the request made by the plaintiff-respondents in their notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity 'the TPA'). The plaintiff-respondents earlier filed a rent petition, which was withdrawn vide order dated 28.9.2003. In one rent petition No. 85 dated 16.10.2002 rent was assessed and the other rent petition No. 31 dated 13.9.2002 was finally decided on 21.7.2003. The tenant-petitioner filed an application during the pendency of the suit alleging that on the ground of non-payment of rent, the earlier rent petition filed against the tenant-petitioner would constitute a bar for filing of the suit as it is contested on the same cause of action. In the application, allegations were made that the plaintiff-respondents have made mis-respresentation to the Court by giving false statements that another rent petition based on similar cause of action between the parties was pending and that all the petitions stood withdrawn. It was further alleged that two remedies one under the General Law and the other under the Rent Act were not available and consequently prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Civil Judge dismissed the application by observing as under :-